Talk politics.

I agree with everything but your last sentence. Loughner's fantasy concoctions (and those of those like him) are definitely reflective of wider society.

From:

How or why would a schizophrenic delusion be reflective of wider society?

From:

1. Jared Loughner's interest in assassinating a politician is rooted in his anti-government attitudes.

2. Anti-government attitudes are prevalent in the wider society in which Jared lives and via the political material Jared is exposed to.

3. Thus, Jared Loughner's attitudes reflect attitudes prevalent in wider society.

From:

I would disagree with 1. I don't see much evidence for 2. Therefore 3 is suspect.

From:

1. Jared Loughner's interest in assassinating a politician is rooted in his anti-government attitudes.

"It seems clear based on Loughner's YouTube videos and MySpace page that he held a grudge against the U.S. government - and that he had had become obsessed with Giffords, the local embodiment of that government."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20028022-503544.html?tag=stack

You disagree with that? Explain your disagreement.

From:

Yes, I disagree with that. His disagreement with her in particular stems from his meeting with her in 2007 where he asked her a delusional question about grammar, he didn't like her answer, and concluded that she was stupid and a fake.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/01/loughners_grudge_against_giffo.html

From:

1. Loughner's writings on grammar and mind control parallel the writings of anti-government author David Wynn Miller.

2. Loughner's interest in rejection of U.S. currency because it is not backed by a gold standard is a core idea of anti-government militia or Patriot movements.

3. Loughner's books of interest - 1984 and Mein Kampf - are anti-government.

4. A Dept. of Homeland Security memo states that Loughner has possible links to American Renaissance, an anti-government group.

5. One video posted to Loughner's Youtube account is of a masked man burning a U.S. flag and a second video includes the words, "Don't trust the current government, listener!"

6. "On both the MySpace and YouTube web pages, Loughner mentions his concern over literacy rates and the fact that few people speak English. He also talks about his distrust of the government" .... "I can't trust the current government because of fabrications," Loughner wrote in a YouTube slide presentation.

From:

None of which is why he targeted her. She was the important part of his delusion, that she was the one victimizing him, as part of the government.

From:

Yes, none of the anti-government ideas is important in Loughner's mind. So, we can dismiss all anti-government ideas as factors in his actions. Basically, because you say so, it must be, because you don't present an argument along with saying so, you just say so. So I must just believe with no backing rationale. Additionally, I will have to deny that there is any anti-government sentiment inside or outside of Loughner's head while I am at it, because you say so, and seemingly that's what you would like me to do. For some reason unknown to me, you're interested in denying that Loughner's interest in anti-government material and Loughner's anti-government attitudes have no important bearings of Loughner's actions.

From:

Yes, none of the anti-government ideas is important in Loughner's mind. So, we can dismiss all anti-government ideas as factors in his actions.

No, I did not say that. Why do people continue to make up stuff in their heads that people don't say and then claim they said it? What is wrong with all you people. And to cut off you making that into something I didn't say also, yes, I'm lumping you in with every single other human on the planet.

From:

I take this:

"None of which is why he targeted her."

to mean this:

"[N]one of the anti-government ideas is important in Loughner's mind."

Are you saying that this first is different than the second? How?

If multiple people are seemingly misinterpreting what you say, have you considered that the reason is you (the way you communicate) and not them (the way they interpret)?

From:

If multiple people are seemingly misinterpreting what you say, have you considered that the reason is you (the way you communicate) and not them (the way they interpret)

It's not just what I say.

Are you saying that this first is different than the second? How?

"why he targeted her" =/= "why he killed people"

His anti-gov't ideas are likely part of the reason why he killed someone in gov't. Why he killed her in particular is not because of his anti-gov't ideas.

From:

There was no schizophrenic delusion. Conspiracy theory is not a schizophrenic delusion.

From:

He wasn't operating under a conspriacy theory, he was fairly clearly schizo with delusions.

From:

No he isn't clearly a schizophrenic. Nothing points to the diagnosis. This is just more fake internet "expert" opinion by people who have no clue about mental illness and what words mean.

From:

No, it's a reasonable diagnosis by multiple mental health experts (shown on tv) and people I personally know who suffer from schizophrenia. Obviously we don't have an actual diagnosis yet, but the evidence is pointing that way, and not away from it. Schizophrenia is itself a fairly vague diagnosis of course, but I doubt you're objecting on that basis.

From:

I'm objecting on the basis that he shows no signs of personal delusion, hallucination or serious cognitive impairment.

From:

Seriously? It seems like a lot of evidence of personal delusion and cognitive impairment. Schizophrenia does not require hallucinations (this is one of the debated issues with the diagnosis).

From:

No. A personal delusion would be something like "there is a chip in my brain" or "my neighbor is poisoning my cereal". Weird or strange non-personal beliefs of a political nature are not delusions. As for his cognitive impairment, he shows no difficulty in comprehending, understanding and following direction or communication. He shows a clear and direct contact with reality, with understandings of his actions and their consequences.

He is dumb. Not schizophrenic.

From:

His grammar thing is not political, but is a personal delusion.

As for his cognitive impairment, he shows no difficulty in comprehending, understanding and following direction or communication. He shows a clear and direct contact with reality, with understandings of his actions and their consequences.

So do schizophrenics.

From:

His grammar thing is not political, but is a personal delusion.
No it isn't. RTFM.

So do schizophrenics.
RTFM

From: